We got 12 answers. Summary from Kaisa Lakkala 21.1.2015.

1. Are you interested in
a) UV doses, unit J/m²
2 yes
b) dose rates, unit W/m²
3 yes
CIE erythemally-weighted UV
c) spectra, unit W/m²/nm
8 yes
d) something else?
3 for daily integrals J/m2/nm
-integrals J/m2/nm divided in two:
sun rise ->midday
midday ->sun set

2. What would be the good time resolution
for
a) spectral data
- at least hourly
- 15-30 min
- continuous measurements

b) dose rates
-at least hourly

c) doses
-hourly
-one per day
-sun rise ->midday
-midday ->sun set

d) something else?
-all data available
-Minimum is 15 minute time resolution, but we could specify a more objective criterium from SZA changes in the morning/afternoon and the UV changes from that

-include midday UV measurement for each station into the schedule of the Brewers

3. Which action spectra would you like to use for the dose rates?
6 for -CIE erythemal
3 for -Vitamin D
2 for -new CIE 1998 action spectrum for erythema
-Generalized Plant (Caldwell 1971)
-DNA damage
-UVB
-UVA

-Here is our list of action spectra that we use: http://uv.biospherical.com/log.....ducts.html

-The action spectra that we apply to spectra submitted to NDACC include:
290-315 nm UVB (W m-2)
315-400 nm UVA (W m-2)
Erythemal UV (W m-2), CIE according to McKinlay and Diffey (1987)
DNA-weighted UV (W m-2), Bernhard and Seckmeyer (1997) formulation of Setlow (1974)
Generalised Plant (W m-2), Green et al. (1974) formulation of Caldwell (1971), normalized to 1 at 300 nm
Vitamin D production (W m-2), Bouillon et al. (2006), truncated at 315 nm
So if these spectra could be also part of the EUBREWNET database, that would be nice

We could maybe provide different action spectra through the database and let the users decide if and which one they would like to use. Then the database could maybe perform the weighting?

4. Do you need spectra, which are weighted with an action spectra (but not integrated over the wavelengths)?
2 No
2 Yes

5. Do you need some other UV quantities?
-Cloud modification factor
-Diffuse component
-Direct component
-summaries
-monthly means of 1a-b
-monthly and yearly sums of 1a-b

6. Something else?
- SZA for each wavelength
- cosine correction factor
- slit function of each instrument
- info of applied corrections, and how they are made
- Time step for each wavelength
- uncertainties in spectral values
- time available for every spectral measurement
- QA spectral state at the highest time available, and time-stamped for each data point

-Have a look at what we provide: http://uv.biospherical.com/Ver.....oducts.asp
Quality control information (see “Flags”), model spectra, direct measurements in addition to global measurements, plus data from ancillary sensors would all be useful.

-One important question is whether the spectral data could be made available for the UV plus VIS range (up to around 800 nm). Of course this goes out of the "UV scope" but it is well known that the effect of UV radiation on most organisms depends on interactions with UV-A and VIS radiation. So having the UV + VIS spectrum available would make it much more useful, say even, if the main data corpus is only UV, having at least some locations with data that includes VIS would be extremely useful.

-I am developing R packages for photobiology, we are using them in house and with a few collaborators, but the long-tern plan is to advertise them when they have been fully written and tested. If you are interested you can have a look at http://r4photobiology.wordpress.com/

-I like to download data from ftp sites, and I like ASCII data

-Freely available access to the data for scientific use

Discussion of real time product is finished , we are agree with :
-SL correction
-Stray light correction,
-Filter correction

The products will change accordingly the information we have at that moment (stray light parameters ,fitler att , etc......)

Version 2 of the ozone algorithm to who include Serdyuchenko cross section ,Bodhaine 1999 for Rayleigh and effective height according to climatology is agreed.
AOD will use Version 2 for ozone for consistency and the same parameters for cross section and Rayleigh
K&Z will support the develop of the public library of procedures and algorithms and the warning system based on the FMI QC.

Web update:
-Level 0 data (without any process is now displayed)
-Database access by JSON interface.
-Configuration interface,is now ready ( IP can introduce the configuration)

I will open a debate on the forum because there are several initiatives for the support future support of EUBREWNET and data request as a network.
This is link with the current discussion about the data politics.

This initiatives are :

-Presentation of Emilio behalf EUBREWET at the MACC meeting in Reading, John was also there.
- There is a project funded by ESA with the aim to provide real-time validation of OMI, in selected stations of Eubrewnet.
- The request from Zerefos of SO2 and AOD data of the network for Volcanic ash detection , this include several european brewer stations, that can serve as a test for the database.
- A poster will be presented at NOG meeting by Henri Diemoz et al, showing the results for the straylight for several brewers on the network

My proposal is to act like AERONET the idea is to have a federal network, so every IP is responsible of his own data.

The data products will be open, everybody can access to the data, but not the use, like AERONET the PI has the priority on the publications. But the raw datafiles that some of you sent will be only available to the other data submitters on the web, again the IP has the priorities for publication.

I think this is an opportunity to start to work as a network, to try to get funds to support the network in near future.

Regards

Alberto Redondas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Kaisa,

As a user (i.e. someone who will be downloading data), I would prefer the data in their final QA spectral state at the highest time available, and time-stamped for each data point. From this I can calculate doses and rates if needs be, and apply any action spectra that are relevant.

However as someone who would be uploading data, this raises another question. I was under the impression that the EUBREWNET database was intended as a way to apply a second check on the diagnostics of all instruments in a consistent way - I had not realised until now that any UV data uploaded would be available for download by other users. What controls and agreements will be put in place to ensure some gives the proper credit / co-authorship on any work based on the data they might download? Once data is uploaded who is considered the owner? I am sure these details probably aren't finalised yet, but I would be interested to know the final decision, and perhaps it would be useful to circulate them so that contributors are aware of them when uploading data.

Yours,
Andy Smedley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
thank you Andrew for addressing an important question concerning the ownership of the data uploaded into EUBREWNET.
I forward your message to the WG leaders, Alberto Redondas, Tomi Karppinen, Alkis Bais and Veerle de Bock, as well as to John Rimmer, so that they can further consider your questions.

Please look at the second paragraph of the forwarded message,

Best regards,
Kaisa Lakkala
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all

I my oppinion the data policy of AERONET is sutable for EUBREWNET and we can use the same, the data already there is now only for demostration purposes and we dont make any use of that without agrrement of the the 'PI'.

(From the AERONET site)

Notice to users:
The public domain data you are about to download are contributed by the International AERONET Federation. Each site has a Principal Investigator(s) (PI) , responsible for deployment, maintenance and data collection. The PI has priority use of the data collected at the site. The PI is entitled to be informed of any other use of that site data. PI contact information can be found on data charts and in downloaded data files for each AERONET site.

Recommended guidelines for data use and publication:
Although journal paper authorship and acknowledgement is the domain of the senior author and no policy is universally applicable, the AERONET contributors ask that every practical attempt be made to honor the following general guidelines.

Using AERONET data:
Please consult with the PI(s) of the data to be used.

Referencing:
Always reference the appropriate key AERONET papers for any publications.

Publishing AERONET data from a 'few' sites:
Please consider authorship for the PI(s) and/or the following acknowledgement:

We thank the (Project/PI) for (its/theirs) effort in establishing and maintaining (site name(s)) sites.
Publishing data from 'many' sites:
A general acknowledgement is typically sufficient and may read:

We thank the (PI investigators) and their staff for establishing and maintaining the (#)sites used in this investigation.
However if the AERONET data are a principal component of the paper then co-authorship to PI's should be offered.

Alberto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.

I think Alberto’s suggestion is a good starting point for EUBREWENET.

Cheers
Alkis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately it will be a decision for the MC guided by the outcomes of WG4 on access rules. All contributors have the opportunity to be part of these discussions and should do so in order to encompass all view points. There is no value in being passive. Instead of asking what will happen we should encourage everyone to state what they would like to happen!
Having said that, I also agree with Alberto and Alkis.

John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
I added Julian as recipient, so he can also follow the discussion.
I am sorry for my mistake, forgetting to include Julian already in the first email.

Best regards,
Kaisa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that Alberto's suggestion of following the AERONET guidelines seems sensible. It is what I would expect both as a data supplier and if downloading data as an end-user. In some ways it is little more than a reminder to give due and proper credit for data monitoring, and the fact that PIs are responsible for data, but I think it is important that it is there.

Yours,
Andy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All

This is an important issue for everyone in that if all network members are expected to submit their data, they need to be reassured over ownership concerns and data access rules.

With the time approaching for the database to become live, I think it would be a good idea to transfer this topic to the forum so everyone has a chance to comment.

It will be better to have it sorted out beforehand than to have it cause problems after implementation because of non-agreement. We can then take a final official vote in May.

Cheers
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,
thank you for the good meeting in Thessaloniki. Unfortunately I am not able to participate to that of Izana, so I want to share
here by email my thoughts concerning the H2020 call we briefly discussed in Thessaloniki.
I asked more information about the Infrasrtucture call INFRAIA-1-2014/2015 from our National Point of Contact, NCP:s.

As answer I got, that it is not like those in the past, where only visitors got money. This time all actions which are made to strengthen the co-operation
between European researchers is wellcome. Money should be available to build/customize/work in the infrastructure. I think it could be good if
someone else also ask from their National Contact Points (NCP), how they see the possibility to get financed by INFRAIA.
Our NCP answered "go on for a proposal".

One idea is to build the Brewer network (+ maybe other UV stations) as being an European infrastructure, which could serve other scientific
communities: We can offer spectral data, spectral and broadband time series to -validate satellite measurements -Health authorities, health research:
good and bad impact of UV on human health (cancer, vitamin D, immunosupression ) -observe UV trends at different latitudes, under the
changing climate and this can be used to take actions concerning human health and ecosystems -UV data and infrastructure for biological studies -
provide infrastructure/data for study of UV effect on materials (FMI has already European contacts with material industry)

-we could improve our existing UV stations/laboratories towards the needs of effect study research.
-There is a need for a large infrastructure with stations at different geographical locations, different meteorological conditions, as the UV impacts are connected to regional climate conditions.
-We could pretty easily get SMSs involved: material effect industry, Kipp&Zone, J. Shreder, D-vitamin pills, sun cream.....

There already exist at least one Research Infrastructure(RI) with near similar idea in climate monitoring called ACTRIS, see: http://ec.europa.eu/research/i.....actris.pdf.

What do you think? Could you maybe discuss this in Izana? The dead line of the call is already on 2.9.2014.

Please find attached the Work program of the call. See page 14. Also
attached some ideas I presented in the meeting of Thessaloniki.

Best regards,
Kaisa

Dear Kaisa,
Thanks you for further exploring the possibility for a proposal to H2020.
Personally I would certainly be interested to take part and contribute to
its preparation. Probably the same stands for many of the Brewer stations
operating in Europe. Your ideas are sound and I think it is a good starting
point for populating the consortium and setting up the objectives of the
proposal. I guess we are probably closer to (1) 'Starting Communities' type
of activity.

I am a bit concerned from the first paragraph on page 16, stating that
"Integrating Activities are expected to duly take into account all relevant
ESFRI research infrastructures...". The Brewer network is not an ESRFI RI
and to my know ledge we cannot link it with any other of that type. However,
since you NCP encouraged you to submit a proposal, I think it would be
reasonable to give it a try. My personal feeling is that you (or generally
FMI) should take the lead of this endeavor.

Unfortunately I will not be at Izana at the COST meeting, but I hope that
there should be some opportunity for those attending the meeting to have
short discussion on this.

Best regards
Alkis

Dear Alkis and everybody,
I can see that there has been a long time since our last emails about this subject: I apology for my long silence.

I asked our National Contact Point about your concern. She answered, that the sentences on page 16 (here below), meant thatin case there is already an existing ESFRI, it should be taken into account. But in case there is not, we could go ahead. The aim is not to overlap with existing ESFRI.
"In both cases, Integrating Activities are expected to duly take into account all relevant ESFRI research infrastructures to exploit synergies and to ensure that rationally designed, comprehensive and coherent overall concepts for European Infrastructures are being pursued.

As the scope of an integrating activity is to ensure coordination and integration between all the key European infrastructures in a given field and to avoid duplication of effort, at most one proposal per area is expected to be funded."
If I understood that no discussion were going on about this at Izana. I discussed this with Paul Eriksen at the NOG meeting in May. Paul told that ACTRIS is going to apply continuation in the same call, so they would be strong competitors. We thought maybe it is not a good idea to try to compete with them.
Thank you for suggesting we could have a leading role here at FMI, but unfortunately we all are on holidays from now until August, and will not have time for preparation of this proposal. Is anybody else interested, John? The dead line is already September 2nd, 2014.
Or have somebody else heard more news regarding this call?
Best regards,
Kaisa